Thursday, February 25, 2010

I can only say WOW. And this is via Reuters; it doesn’t completely let go of the ‘we unquestionably have manmade warming’ line, but it’s the first U.S. media outlet I’ve seen which goes this far. Now if the Ass. Press (abbreviation intentional) would just stop the advocacy journalism and report on all the scandals, facts, and scientific truth regarding manmade climate change, we skeptics might get somewhere. But truthfully, it’s getting to the point where the holdouts like the AP and MSNBC will not be able to stop the avalanche of evidence—empirical and scientific—that demonstrates just how stupid and false this hoax is. Remember when U.S. media outlets ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal (to protect Clinton) while Drudge broke the story? The public is becoming more and more wise to the trickery. The British press has covered the scandals and lies exposed recently, while most of the American media has ignored it all. After all, the U.S. mainstream media can’t be seen to admit that they’ve been feeding the American public a load of bull (which they’ve been doing).

Note what Reuters admits. They make a point about discovering the exact cause of cooling for ten years (which they laughably call ‘lack of warming’) from 1999-2008, while Dr. Hansen’s GISS has recently said—stupidly—that the last decade (through 2009) was the ‘warmest on record.’ Yes, the same alarmist Dr. Hansen who had to retract a similar pronunciation in October 2008, when skeptics scrutinized his data and discovered errors (good thing for skeptics, eh?). So climate scientists don’t even agree on what year or decade was the ‘warmest’ as a baseline. They don’t agree because it’s all based on ‘smoke and mirrors’—computer models fed temperature data from ground stations that—themselves—skew the data. Garbage-in, garbage-out.

I know what’s causing the cooling. It’s called natural climate variability, which will create warming periods (as it has in the past BEFORE manmade emissions) and cooling periods (as it has in the past BEFORE manmade emissions). In other words, this is all bullshit, just as the Global Cooling scare of the 1970s was. And I’m not even a climate scientist...I’m a molecular biologist. The ethics of science are the same for us all.

What’s amazing are the number of people apparently willing to just accept whatever line they’re fed by authority figures and their media lapdogs, without question. We’re just going to allow a group of politicians to regulate and tax CO2 (which we exhale with every breath) because a “consensus” of 60 scientists (versus >31,000 skeptical scientists) say we “must act now!” Aspirant, opportunistic politicians are always looking for openings such as that, for fear manifests a requirement for their intervention and subsequent consolidation of power (and wealth...right, Al Gore?).

The point of this article is to lament the crisis faced by alarmist climate scientists in continuing to convince everyone that “the debate is over” and “the consensus says” and “we must act NOW.” Once you sheep stop believing the lie, their little research grant boondoggle will begin to dry up. Politicians will move on to the next boondoggle, but we MUST make unethical scientists pay the price for betraying their profession in order to endorse radical political stances by warping science. We can all agree to take care of the Earth (because it’s the right thing to do) without violating our integrity, ethics, and lying to ourselves.

* Exact causes unknown for lack of warming from 1999-2008

* The underlying reason for cold winter not known

* Climate science in focus after email scandal, errors

By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle

LONDON/OSLO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.

At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.

Public conviction of global warming’s risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.